Connect with us

Analysis

Tariff Theater: Trump’s Refund Rhetoric and the Politics of Pressure

Published

on

President Trump Postlaunch Remarks (NHQ202005300037)

It is no surprise that in American politics, few acts are as recurring—and as polarising—as President Donald Trump’s economic brinkmanship. His latest performance centers on a familiar stage: tariffs. But this time, the spotlight is on the Supreme Court, and the script is laced with staggering numbers, constitutional questions, and a not-so-subtle warning of national ruin.

At the heart of the drama is Trump’s claim that if the Supreme Court rules against him on the constitutionality of certain tariffs, the United States would be forced to pay back an astronomical sum in refunds. The figure? A moving target, but one that reportedly ballooned by over 1,400 trillion Korean won (roughly over $1 trillion USD) within hours. The message is clear: rule against me, and the economic fallout will be catastrophic.

But is this a legitimate fiscal forecast—or a political pressure tactic dressed in economic hyperbole?

The Numbers Game

Let’s start with the numbers. Trump’s tariff refund estimates have fluctuated wildly, raising eyebrows among economists and legal scholars alike. Critics argue that the figures lack transparency and are not grounded in publicly available data. The sudden inflation of the refund amount—by a scale that would make even seasoned budget analysts wince—suggests more of a rhetorical flourish than a rigorous financial projection.

This isn’t the first time Trump has wielded economic data as a political cudgel. During his first term, he frequently touted trade deficits, job creation numbers, and GDP growth in ways that often stretched the bounds of statistical integrity. The tariff refund saga appears to be a continuation of that pattern: using big, scary numbers to frame the narrative and steer public opinion.

ALSO READ :  The Role of Middle Powers in a Multipolar World

Constitutional Crossroads

Beyond the math lies a deeper issue: the constitutional authority to impose tariffs. At stake is whether the executive branch overstepped its bounds by unilaterally imposing tariffs without congressional approval. The case before the Supreme Court could set a precedent that reshapes the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches on matters of trade.

Trump’s framing of the potential ruling as a national economic threat is not just about dollars—it’s about deterrence. By painting a picture of fiscal apocalypse, he’s effectively daring the Court to pull the trigger. It’s a high-stakes game of judicial chicken, and it places the justices in an uncomfortable position: uphold constitutional checks and balances, or risk being blamed for triggering a financial crisis.

The Politics of Pressure

This tactic—using exaggerated consequences to influence institutional behavior—is vintage Trump. Whether it’s threatening to shut down the government, pull out of international agreements, or now, unleash a tidal wave of tariff refunds, the strategy is consistent: escalate the stakes until resistance becomes politically untenable.

But the Supreme Court is not Congress. It is, at least in theory, insulated from political pressure and guided by legal principle. Trump’s attempt to sway the Court through public alarmism may backfire, especially if the justices perceive it as an encroachment on their independence.

Moreover, the American public is increasingly savvy to the mechanics of political theater. While Trump’s base may rally behind his warnings, others may see them as yet another example of crisis inflation—an attempt to manufacture urgency where none exists.

Economic Reality Check

Even if the Court were to rule against the tariffs, the notion that the U.S. would immediately owe trillions in refunds is dubious. Trade law experts note that refund mechanisms are complex, often subject to litigation, and rarely result in lump-sum payouts. The process would likely be drawn out over years, with many claims contested or denied.

ALSO READ :  The Chicago Cubs 'Waiting' on Cody Bellinger for Serious Contract Talks

Furthermore, the broader economic impact of such a ruling could be mitigated through legislative action. Congress could, for instance, pass measures to limit retroactive refunds or restructure tariff policy in a way that cushions the blow. In other words, the sky is not falling—at least not yet.

A Test of Institutional Fortitude

What this episode ultimately reveals is less about tariffs and more about institutional resilience. Can the Supreme Court render a decision based on constitutional merit, free from the gravitational pull of political spectacle? Can the public discern between genuine economic risk and manufactured crisis?

Trump’s approach may be effective in the short term—dominating headlines, rallying supporters, and framing the narrative. But in the long run, it risks eroding trust in both the presidency and the judiciary. When every policy dispute is cast as an existential threat, the public becomes desensitized, and real crises lose their urgency.

Conclusion: Beyond the Numbers

The tariff refund saga is a microcosm of a larger trend in American politics: the weaponization of uncertainty. By inflating numbers and amplifying consequences, leaders can manipulate perception and shape outcomes. But this strategy comes at a cost. It undermines institutional credibility, distorts public discourse, and reduces complex legal questions to simplistic soundbites.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, it must do so not in the shadow of trillion-won threats, but in the light of constitutional clarity. And as citizens, we must demand more than theatrics—we must demand truth, transparency, and a politics grounded in principle, not panic.


Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Analysis

Min Ah: The Global Impact and Rising Popularity of the K-Drama Star

Published

on

“Min Ah” is one of the most searched names in Korean drama, and it points to more than one actress. The one driving the biggest buzz right now is Shin Min-a.

Key Takeaways

  • Biggest news: Shin Min-a stars as Empress Navier in Disney+’s The Remarried Empress, which premieres November 4, 2026, per Soompi.
  • Cast: Ju Ji-hoon plays Emperor Sovieshu, Lee Se-young plays Rashta, and Lee Jong-suk plays Prince Heinrey.
  • Scale: the story is based on a web novel and webtoon that recorded about 2.97 billion cumulative global views as of July 2026, and it is Disney+’s first K-romance fantasy (SBS Star).
  • Name confusion: other well-known “Min Ah” performers include Kang Min-ah and Minah (Bang Min-ah) of Girl’s Day. This article explains who is who.
NameKnown forLatest news
Shin Min-aLeading roles in major dramas and filmsThe Remarried Empress (Nov 4, 2026)
Kang Min-ahActress represented by H&EntertainmentDrama Sympathetic Cells with Kim Myung-soo; premiere date announced June 2026 (MyDramaList)
Minah (Bang Min-ah)Former Girl’s Day member turned actressBorn May 13, 1993; Girl’s Day debut in 2010 (Dramabeans)

Shin Min-a’s Next Big Role: The Remarried Empress

Disney+ confirmed on August 26 that the series would premiere on November 4, releasing a teaser and character posters (Soompi). The story follows Navier, the “perfect empress” of the Eastern Empire, who is told by her husband that he wants a divorce after he falls for a runaway slave, Rashta. Instead of accepting defeat, Navier asks permission to remarry, choosing the prince of a rival kingdom.

ALSO READ :  Knee-deep in Covid-19, our hospitals need steady supplies of PPEs, sanitisers and adequate staff

Release plan

According to industry coverage, the ten-part series will debut with a four-episode drop and then release two episodes each Wednesday through a November 25 finale, and it streams on Hulu in the U.S. (Resonate). The same report says the first three episodes will screen at the Busan International Film Festival, which runs October 6–15.

Why it matters

This is the clearest sign of how K-drama has become a global asset. Platforms are paying for fantasy adaptations of internet-born stories with huge built-in audiences, and they are casting established leads to carry them.

Why Shin Min-a’s Popularity Travels

  • Longevity. She has worked consistently in Korean drama since the early 2000s, and her credits on MyDramaList span more than two decades (MyDramaList).
  • Genre range. From romantic comedy to Netflix thriller Karma and a 2026 film, The Eyes, in which she plays dual roles (MyDramaList).
  • Global platforms. Disney+, Netflix, and Hulu give Korean series simultaneous worldwide releases.

The Other “Min Ah” Actresses

Kang Min-ah

A Seoul-born actress with credits since the 2010s. MyDramaList lists a 2026 drama, Sympathetic Cells, with Kim Myung-soo, whose premiere date was announced in June (MyDramaList).

Minah (Bang Min-ah)

She debuted with Girl’s Day in 2010, made her acting debut on the tvN variety program Roller Coaster, and later won a Best New Actress trophy at the 2013 Gwangju International Film Festival for the film Holly. She led the 2020 film Snowball, which earned a Screen International Rising Star Asia Award at the New York Asian Film Festival (Dramabeans).

How to Search the Right Person

Add the family name: “Shin Min-a,” “Kang Min-ah,” or “Bang Minah.” Spelling varies in English (Min-a, Mina, Min Ah), which is why results get mixed.

ALSO READ :  Federal Judge's Recent Ruling Deems DACA Program Unlawful Once Again in United States

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Min Ah in K-drama?

There are several, but the most prominent right now is Shin Min-a, starring in The Remarried Empress.

When does The Remarried Empress premiere?

November 4, 2026, on Disney+ (Soompi).

Who is in the cast?

Shin Min-a, Ju Ji-hoon, Lee Jong-suk, and Lee Se-young.

Is Min Ah the same as Minah from Girl’s Day?

No. Minah is Bang Min-ah, a different performer (Dramabeans).

How popular is the source story?

The webtoon had about 2.97 billion global views as of July 2026 (SBS Star).

Whichever Min Ah you were searching for, the pattern is the same: Korean drama talent now finds its audience everywhere at once.


Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

AI

Pakistan Warns UN Security Council of AI Risks to Global Peace and Equality

Published

on

UNITED NATIONS — September 24, 2026: Pakistan has warned the United Nations Security Council that the rapid and insufficiently regulated development of artificial intelligence could deepen global inequality while creating new risks to international peace and security.

Speaking during a Security Council briefing on “Artificial Intelligence and International Security,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar called for stronger international safeguards, regulatory frameworks and governance mechanisms to address the risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems.

Dar emphasized that the international community needs coordinated action to establish guardrails around artificial intelligence, particularly as AI technologies become increasingly relevant to military decision-making, information systems and national security.

Pakistan Calls for International Guardrails on Artificial Intelligence

Pakistan’s intervention comes as governments and international institutions increasingly debate how AI should be governed across borders.

Dar stressed the importance of restraint and confidence-building measures in the military domain, particularly because AI-assisted systems could compress decision-making timelines and increase the danger of miscalculation.

The concern is significant because artificial intelligence is no longer confined to civilian applications. AI is increasingly being examined in relation to cyber operations, intelligence analysis, autonomous systems, information warfare and other security-sensitive areas.

The United Nations has also warned that AI can create substantial risks when technological development moves faster than international governance.

The UN’s existing AI framework emphasizes responsible, accountable, transparent and human-centered development, while calling for effective human oversight of AI systems.

Why AI Is Becoming a Security Council Issue

The Security Council has previously considered artificial intelligence as a potential factor affecting international peace and security, but the technology has developed rapidly since those early discussions.

A recent analysis by the independent Security Council Report identified several security implications, including AI’s ability to facilitate malicious cyber activity, accelerate the creation and distribution of misinformation and disinformation, and influence military operations.

The organization also highlighted concerns surrounding increasingly autonomous weapons systems, shortened decision-making timelines and questions about human oversight and accountability.

These concerns help explain why AI has moved beyond being primarily a technology-policy issue and increasingly become a subject of international security diplomacy.

The challenge for governments is that AI can simultaneously create opportunities and risks.

AI could help countries identify emerging conflicts, improve humanitarian operations, monitor ceasefires and analyze large quantities of information. At the same time, poorly governed systems could amplify security threats or make already complex conflicts more difficult to manage.

Pakistan Highlights the Global Inequality Dimension

Pakistan’s message to the Security Council went beyond military applications.

Dar also emphasized the need for AI development to be representative, transparent and inclusive, reflecting concerns among developing countries that the benefits of advanced artificial intelligence could become concentrated among a relatively small group of technologically advanced states and companies.

That concern is already reflected in the United Nations’ Global Digital Compact.

The Compact calls for closing digital divides, expanding access to the benefits of the digital economy and strengthening international governance of artificial intelligence. It specifically calls for full and equal representation of countries, including developing nations, in international AI governance.

ALSO READ :  The Role of Middle Powers in a Multipolar World

This makes AI access and governance part of a broader development question.

Countries with advanced computing infrastructure, large datasets, sophisticated research institutions and substantial private-sector investment are positioned differently from nations that remain dependent on imported technologies and have limited domestic AI capacity.

If that gap widens, AI could potentially reinforce existing economic and technological inequalities rather than reduce them.

UN Framework Already Calls for Inclusive AI Governance

The debate at the Security Council is taking place alongside a broader UN effort to develop international mechanisms for AI governance.

The Global Digital Compact, adopted as part of the Pact for the Future, established a framework for international cooperation on digital technologies and AI.

The United Nations has subsequently established an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance.

The first annual Global Dialogue took place in Geneva in July 2026, bringing together governments and other stakeholders to discuss international cooperation, AI opportunities and emerging risks.

The UN says the dialogue is intended to ensure that AI governance reflects the priorities of all nations rather than only those with the greatest technological capabilities.

For developing countries such as Pakistan, this process provides an avenue to raise questions about technological access, capacity-building, data governance and participation in international rule-making.

AI and Military Decision-Making Raise Particular Concerns

One of the most sensitive areas in the AI debate is military decision-making.

AI can process enormous volumes of information far faster than humans. That capability could potentially assist military planners and governments, but it also raises questions about what happens when decisions involving force are increasingly influenced by automated systems.

A shorter decision-making cycle can create pressure to respond before human officials have fully evaluated the available information.

That is why Pakistan’s emphasis on restraint and confidence-building is significant in the context of international security.

The broader UN position has also stressed the importance of retaining meaningful human control over decisions involving the use of force.

The central issue is not simply whether AI should be used in security applications, but how governments can establish accountability when AI-assisted systems contribute to consequential decisions.

Disinformation Adds Another Layer of Risk

AI-generated content presents another challenge for governments and international organizations.

Generative AI can make it easier to create convincing text, images, audio and video at scale. In a conflict environment, such capabilities could complicate efforts to distinguish authentic information from manipulated material.

The UN has identified misinformation and disinformation among the major concerns surrounding artificial intelligence, particularly where manipulated content can affect public trust, human rights or humanitarian operations.

For international institutions, the problem is therefore both technological and political: governments must develop mechanisms capable of addressing harmful AI-generated content without undermining legitimate expression or access to information.

Global AI Governance Is Becoming More Urgent

The current Security Council discussion reflects a larger international shift.

AI governance is no longer being discussed solely in terms of innovation, investment and economic competitiveness. Governments are increasingly considering questions involving national security, international stability, human rights, development and inequality.

ALSO READ :  Fed Rate Hike 2026: Kevin Warsh's Hawkish Pivot Explained | Impact on Mortgages & Markets

The United States and China, for example, continue to compete technologically while also discussing mechanisms for AI safety and communication.

Meanwhile, the UN is developing a more inclusive multilateral framework intended to give countries a role in shaping international AI governance.

That creates an important distinction between AI development and AI governance.

The first concerns how quickly capabilities advance. The second concerns the rules, safeguards and institutions that determine how those capabilities are developed and deployed.

What Pakistan’s Position Means for Developing Countries

Pakistan’s intervention highlights an issue that is likely to remain central to future AI negotiations: who gets to shape the rules governing artificial intelligence?

Developing countries have an interest not only in managing AI-related risks but also in ensuring access to the technology’s potential benefits.

The UN’s Global Digital Compact recognizes the need for capacity-building, technology cooperation and support for developing countries to access, develop, use and govern AI systems.

That approach is particularly relevant as AI becomes increasingly connected to education, healthcare, agriculture, financial services, public administration and economic productivity.

Without adequate access to computing infrastructure, skills, data and investment, developing countries could find themselves primarily consuming technologies designed elsewhere.

Pakistan’s call for representative and inclusive AI governance therefore places technological development and international security within the same broader conversation.

The Challenge Ahead: Rules That Keep Pace With Technology

The Security Council’s latest discussion illustrates the central difficulty confronting policymakers.

Artificial intelligence is developing faster than many traditional regulatory processes can respond.

International rules must address security risks without unnecessarily blocking beneficial innovation. They must also account for differences between developed and developing countries while maintaining fundamental principles such as human rights, transparency and accountability.

The United Nations’ emerging governance architecture is an attempt to address that challenge through scientific assessment, international dialogue and greater participation by countries around the world.

Pakistan’s intervention adds another voice to that debate, particularly on the consequences of unequal access to AI capabilities and the risks associated with AI-assisted military decision-making.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s warning at the UN Security Council underscores the increasingly international character of the artificial intelligence debate.

The issue is no longer simply how quickly AI can advance. It is also about how the technology is governed, who participates in setting the rules, how military risks are controlled and whether the benefits of AI are distributed broadly enough to avoid deepening existing inequalities.

As AI becomes more deeply integrated into security, economies and public institutions, international cooperation will become an increasingly important part of managing both its opportunities and its risks.

For Pakistan and other developing countries, the emerging global AI governance system will be particularly important because the rules established today could influence access to technology, economic opportunities and participation in future international decision-making for years to come.


Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Finance

Jennifer Garner’s Latest Projects: Business Ventures Beyond Hollywood

Published

on

Most celebrity business ventures are licensing deals wearing a founder’s costume. The name goes on the label, the cheque clears, and an operating company nobody has heard of does the actual work.

Jennifer Garner’s is not that. On 6 February 2026, she rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange as Once Upon A Farm went public at $18 per share with a valuation of $724 million.

The company she co-founded is now a listed public entity with audited financials, a board seat in her name, and a stock price that has since gone down. That last detail is the most interesting part of the story.

Key Takeaways

What Once Upon A Farm Actually Is

The company sells organic, cold-pressed refrigerated food for children — pouches, smoothies, applesauce and oat bars — through grocery retail and direct-to-consumer channels.

It was founded by serial entrepreneurs Cassandra Curtis and Ari Raz, with Garner and CEO John Foraker joining as co-founders two years later. Foraker’s background matters to the credibility of the operation: he ran Annie’s Homegrown for more than a decade and served as a president at General Mills.

Note: founding-date reporting varies between 2011 and 2015 depending on the source. Verify before publication.

The Financial Trajectory

MetricFigure
Annual revenue (yr ending Sept 2025)$225 million
Year-on-year growthOver 40%
CAGR since 2018More than 60%
IPO valuation$724 million
Capital raised$197.9 million
Shares sold by company~7.6 million
Shares sold by existing holders~3.4 million
Lead bookrunnersGoldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase

A compound annual growth rate above 60% sustained over seven years is not a celebrity endorsement outcome. It is a consumer packaged goods outcome — and CPG is one of the hardest categories in which to build distribution from scratch.

What Her Actual Job Is

This is where the Once Upon A Farm story diverges most sharply from the celebrity-brand template, because the terms are public.

The S-1 discloses that Garner serves on the public company’s board of directors and continues as co-founder and spokesperson — “Farmer Jen” — a role for which she was paid $1 million in the prior year, with $2 million to $3 million in expected annual compensation through 2028, separate from stock options and an IPO-linked bonus.

ALSO READ :  Steelers' Charter Flight Home from Las Vegas Makes Safe Emergency Landing in Kansas City

She also worked the roadshow directly. Garner described the investor meetings to Forbes as rooms full of existing customers, noting that families already trusted the product.

That is a meaningful distinction for anyone assessing celebrity-backed companies. There is a difference between a founder who licenses a likeness and a founder who sits on the board, pitches institutional investors and has compensation disclosed in a registration statement.


The Mission Structure

Once Upon A Farm is a public benefit corporation — the “PBC” in its legal name — which means its charter permits management to weigh mission alongside shareholder returns.

Garner has framed the IPO itself as a mission decision. Selling to a major food conglomerate would have cost the existing team control of the business; a listing preserved it while raising capital.

The concrete expression of that mission is WIC certification. Getting products approved so low-income families can purchase them through the federal nutrition programme has been a stated priority, and the brand now holds that distinction in more than 20 states. Garner has called it the company’s north star.

It connects to a longer track record — she had been a trustee for Save the Children for several years before joining the company in 2017.

The Risks the Prospectus Discloses

A public listing forces disclosure that private celebrity ventures never face. Three risks stand out.

Tariff and sourcing exposure. The prospectus highlighted risks related to tariffs and trade barriers, particularly against Mexico and South America, from where the company sources a significant portion of its fruit and vegetable ingredients.

Key-person concentration. A brand built substantially on one founder’s public identity carries a risk no diversified CPG company does.

Acquisition framing. Ahead of the listing, Hedgeye analyst Bennett Cheer characterised the company as an acquisition “play” — a view that treats the IPO as a staging post toward a strategic sale rather than a destination.

The Post-IPO Slide, and What It Tells You

The stock’s path is the honest part of this story. Priced at $18, up 17% on day one, close to $25 within a week, then down roughly 15% for the year by August.

Garner’s stated response has been to ignore the daily price and focus on execution — her position being that the stock follows the mission rather than the reverse.

Whether or not one finds that convincing as investor communication, the underlying pattern is common and worth understanding. Consumer IPOs frequently pop on scarcity — the listing was described as a rare food offering that excited investors — and then reprice once the float settles and quarterly results replace the narrative.

ALSO READ :  Navigating the Storm: ASEAN's Playbook for Small States in US-China Tensions

For investors, the lesson generalises. A founder’s celebrity generates demand at listing. It does not generate gross margin.

The Broader Commercial Portfolio

Beyond Once Upon A Farm, Garner’s commercial activity follows a consistent pattern: long-term brand relationships rather than one-off endorsements.

She has been the recurring face of Capital One’s advertising campaigns, continuing through 2026. She brokered Once Upon A Farm’s first sports sponsorship in 2024 — a multi-year deal making it Angel City FC’s exclusive children’s snack partner.

She was named to the Forbes 50 Over 50 class of 2026 at age 54, alongside continued acting work.

What This Means for the Global Market in 2027

Coverage of celebrity businesses stops at the launch. Here is what actually determines outcomes.

Public listing is the real test of a celebrity brand. Private valuations are negotiated; public ones are voted on daily. Expect more celebrity-founded consumer companies to attempt listings after this precedent — and expect most to trade below their debut.

Governance disclosure becomes the differentiator. Once Upon A Farm published its founder compensation structure. Investors evaluating the next celebrity IPO should ask for the same and treat its absence as a signal.

Tariff exposure is the underpriced risk in food CPG. Companies sourcing produce from Mexico and South America face input volatility that margin models built in a stable trade environment do not capture.

The PBC structure will be tested. A public benefit corporation’s mission commitments have not yet been stress-tested against a sustained share price decline. Once Upon A Farm may become the case study.

Acquisition remains the likely endgame. If the Hedgeye thesis holds, a strategic buyer eventually acquires the brand. The question for shareholders is whether that happens above or below the $18 listing price.

Frequently Asked Questions

What company did Jennifer Garner found?

Garner is a co-founder and chief brand officer of Once Upon A Farm, an organic children’s food company. She joined in September 2017 alongside CEO John Foraker; the business was originally founded by Cassandra Curtis and Ari Raz.

When did Once Upon A Farm go public?

The company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker OFRM on 6 February 2026, pricing at $18 per share for a valuation of $724 million and raising $197.9 million.

How much revenue does Once Upon A Farm generate?

The company reported $225 million in annual revenue for the year ending September 2025, representing growth of more than 40% year-on-year and a compound annual growth rate above 60% since 2018.

Is Jennifer Garner paid by Once Upon A Farm?

Yes, and the terms are disclosed. She was paid $1 million in the year before the IPO, with $2 million to $3 million in expected annual compensation through 2028, separate from stock options and an IPO-linked bonus.


Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2019-2026 ,The Monitor . All Rights Reserved .

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading